Jan 12, 2016

Unnatural Order: The Corporation as Parallel State & Culture

via Counter-Currents

Most of us are familiar with the anti-white policies of the corporate world. From affirmative action and diversity promotions to termination for thought crimes and anti-white advertisements, big business happily accepts the dictates of the Jewish narrative in all its guises.

There are numerous reasons for this: false impressions of the market based on Jewish media representations, various governmental financial incentives, pressure from social justice warriors, the employment of rich and sheltered liberal whites in leadership positions, and the vastly disproportionate number of Jews in positions of power, both as business leaders and as financial puppet-masters. To be sure, this list is far from complete but beyond such things is another serious problem, one that greatly inhibits the ability of whites (especially middle and upper class whites) to combat the anti-white agenda: the corporate world functions as a parallel state with a deracinated and emasculated culture that serves to misdirect healthy racially-based social organizational impulses.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average American spends more time working than doing any other activity.[1] Our jobs not only occupy a great deal of our time but also a tremendous amount of mental space as well: worrying about deadlines, navigating the waters of office politics, presenting the appropriate physical image, maneuvering ourselves into better positions so that we might be given the chance to work even longer hours for a few more dollars, socializing with the right people outside of work, and so on. What might seem like an eight, nine, or ten hour work day is, in reality, quite a bit longer and involves many things that do not directly apply to the specific set of tasks any given job requires. There is an intense psychological investment in one’s workplace universe that reduces the capacity for investment in other realms of activity and which does not disappear when one leaves the hypnotically  sterile manicured lawns and “plop art” of the office park.[2]  Honor, loyalty, and duty are directed towards one’s employer and coworkers rather than towards the state, the nation, and,  all too often, even the family.

This devotion to the corporation is rooted in the Protestant work ethic and is exacerbated by traditional white high social trust and a corresponding sense of dutiful reciprocity. Like so many valuable and admirable white traits, these have been perverted and used to manipulate us into self-destruction, partially by design and partially due to the natural trajectory of capitalist modernity. Life in the corporate world ends up being the psycho-social equivalent of dual citizenship, but without even the political dynamism and commitment inherent in that term.

The ultimate loyalty, however, is to the corporation, both in daily practice and in political allegiance (there is, for example, no viable American political party that does not court big business and subscribe to the neoliberal worldview). Traditional loyalties to organic social units are subsumed into this corporate “state,” thus creating a neutered, short-sighted, and politically passionless populace. The employee owes his allegiance first and foremost to the corporation, which is the source of his livelihood and towards which his emotions, his ritualistic impulses, and his sociality are directed.

How does this happen? The primary reason is, of course, simply the sheer amount of time spent in the physical workplace. Secondly, there is the tremendous psychological pressure caused by the conviction (real and/or imagined) that success in the workplace determines one’s quality of life. But there are ways in which the social and organizational environment of the workplace alters the character of individual employees and their relationship to the outside world. The workplace environment shapes reactions, opinions, desires, goals, and visions of the future in accordance with its own internal logic. The employees constitute the “citizens” of the bureaucratic and intensely hierarchical corporate “state.” This “state,” however, is devoid of any purpose other than resource consumption and regurgitation, money-making for the sake of money-making, and self-replication through physical and market expansion. As such the impulses of its citizen-employees are likewise geared towards such politically fallow and spiritually unfulfilling goals.

Beginning in the mid-19th century, new technologies and expanded distribution capabilities allowed businesses to grow far beyond local and regional markets. Accompanying this change in scale was the bureaucratization of business. Expanding businesses needed employees to manage the expansion. With further expansion came greater numbers of managers and then, naturally, a group of managers to manage the other managers and so on. This pattern became the dominant organizational model for business in America and, as so many of us know, remains so to this day. Sociologist Robert Jackall, who has done extensive work on managerial ethics and corporate culture, writes:

The changes in our social landscape brought about by this bureaucratization can hardly be exaggerated. This great transformation produced the decline of the old middle class of entrepreneurs, free professionals, independent farmers, and small independent businessmen — the traditional carriers of the old Protestant work ethic — and the ascendance of a new middle class of salaried employees, that is, clerks, managers, executives, officials, technicians, and professionals alike, whose chief common characteristic was and is their dependence on the big organization. In the bargain, bureaucratization shredded and reknit whole communities by making individual life chances almost wholly dependent on bureaucratic career lines that often require an unusual willingness to be geographically mobile.[3]

A multiplicity of bureaucratic businesses was created, each containing employees who were now dependent on the success of their particular organizations. It should already be clear how the concept of dual-citizenship applies here: with people and families increasingly scattered across the country, meaningful ties to traditional social, economic, and governmental community networks were broken; people became dependent on large business organizations for their financial security, their social networks, and their psychological comfort; the corporation, bosses, coworkers, and the very process of bureaucracy became the foundation of their daily lives.

As time progressed, this pattern of rootless corporate bureaucratization spread like a virus. The culture of corporations — and of corporate culture — became deeply entrenched in American society.[4] With every passing year, fewer and fewer Americans remained outside this system. Those who did (blue-collar workers, craftsmen, artists, and others) found life much harder, while those who willingly joined this new “state” found that their lives were dramatically changed by the experience. All of this has continued and deepened since the process began almost a century and a half ago. The workplace is now a home away from home and few question it.[5] Individual identity has given way to a task-based institutional collectivism. Free-thought has given way to conformity. Honor has given way to compliance. And the average worker’s higher sense of duty is now geared towards his employer rather than his community. In order for a person to succeed in the corporate world, a profound obsequiousness has to engulf his spirit. To think that this spiritual submission does not flow into other aspects of employees’ lives is terribly naive.

In this parallel state, the chief executive officer (CEO) is the head of state. His representatives are the equivalent of titled nobility. They are the law makers and the culture producers. Their financial success and comfortable existence is the raison d’état and they are treated accordingly. In the modern business world, deference to one’s boss is almost Confucian. Dr. Jackall writes:

On a social level, even though an easy, breezy, first-name informality is the prevalent style of American business, a concession perhaps to our democratic heritage and egalitarian rhetoric, the subordinate must extend to the boss a certain ritual deference. For instance, he must follow the boss’s lead in conversation, must not speak out of turn at meetings, must laugh at his boss’s jokes while not making jokes of his own that upstage his boss, must not rib his boss for his foibles. The shrewd subordinate learns to efface himself, so that his boss’s face might shine more clearly.[6]

It is hard to imagine this type of behavior in any other American context. Not only is it distinctly foreign to American social custom but it endows the corporation itself with a majesty found nowhere else in American society (with the possible exception of celebrities, among whose numbers we can count numerous CEOs). Indeed, for Dr. Jackall, this odd combination of “hankering for attachment” and the unavailability of “kings and princes . . . as objects of personal attachment” is the very basis for the ethics of the American corporate world.[7] The human need for objects of reverence and for some sort of ritualized deference to authority is transferred from the real state to the parallel state. But in the parallel state these rituals merely fulfill a base, mechanical psychological need. There is no higher purpose, no deeper understanding of one’s place in the local community, the nation, or indeed the universe that is illuminated by these empty “substitute” rituals. They function only to divert these basic human impulses away from the recreation of an organic racial nation-state.

Life in the corporation is one of constant concern for one’s position within the hierarchy. It is an inherently selfish social orientation, despite its superficial organizational form and “go team” attitude. The health of the corporation and, in particular, of the department or “team” of which one is a member, matters only to the extent that it serves as a protection from the vagaries of office politics, the whims of the CEO and his henchmen, and chaotic market forces. It is because of this that patron-client relationships are formed. The employee/client recognizes that his personal interest is best served by submitting to the boss/patron and using the relationship to advance his own position within the organization. This submission rarely, if ever, arises out of a commitment to whatever it is the corporation “stands for.” There is no idealism at play here, no concern for the corporate mission, no selfless devotion to an ideal. It is a submission based in selfishness and a gamble on the efficacy of “safety in numbers.” The employee will regularly allow his boss to take credit for his various personal successes as well as take the blame for his boss’s failures in return for protection within the organization and a chance for advancement at a later date — or even for such pathetic perks as “better, more attractive secretaries, or the nudging of a movable panel to enlarge his office, and perhaps a couch to fill the added space, one of the real distinctions in corporate bureaucracies.”[8] But this is a highly nuanced game and any loyalty between the patron and client is based solely on social safety, convenience, and internal political strategy.

There is no solid ground for loyalty within the corporation other than the shared experience of the workplace and the desire for personal gain, and so these relationships are fickle. Privileges can be revoked at any time for minor infractions of corporate cultural rules. This, for example, is partially the reason behind  the highly euphemistic language characteristic of business-speak: “managers’ public language is best characterized as a kind of provisional discourse, a tentative way of communicating that reflects the peculiarly chancy and fluid character of their world.”[9] The prevalence of such “chancy and fluid” relationships in the workplace impacts levels of social trust outside of the workplace. Employees who are accustomed to tenuous relationships and uncertain motives in their personal interactions during the workday are more likely to carry these feelings with them into the larger community. Office politics become an overarching concern of the employee. Bosses have the power to forever alter the course of any particular individual’s life and so a combination of fear, distrust, and submission provides the backdrop to the employee’s workday and beyond. Arguably, there is no other person in an employee’s life that has as much say over his present and his future as does his boss. The corporation then is a system of rewards and punishments dependent on variables that are only minimally controllable by the employee.

Unstable and shallow personal relationships combined with the need to present a widely acceptable corporate image to the public and to regulate potentially disruptive employee behavior causes corporate workplace culture to be heavily conformist. Tolerance of dissent — even when it could benefit the business as a whole — is minimal. Whistleblowers, the most obvious example of dissent, are treated very harshly. But so are those who simply try to do a good job (i.e. the “right thing”) but whose efforts disturb the balance of the patron-client relationship. If efforts to, for example, reduce waste or improve health and safety, reflect poorly on one’s boss — or, worst of all, the CEO — one risks being ostracized or terminated. Dr. Jackall writes: “Notions of morality that one might hold and indeed practice outside the workplace — say some variant of Judeo-Christian ethics — become irrelevant, as do less specifically religious points of principle, unless they mesh with organizational ideologies.”[10] But in the corporate environment in which dissent can be something as innocuous as the wrong clothing or having the wrong friends in the organization, unpopular political opinions can hardly be tolerated.

The recent case of Mozilla CEO Brandon Eich, who was fired for supporting California’s Proposition 8, a measure to stop the legalization of homosexual marriage, is a good example of this.[11] Though such a dramatic and public controversy is to a large extent indicative of the power of the Jewish narrative (whatever one’s opinions are on this specific issue), had the issue remained within the walls of the corporation  Mr. Eich could still easily have faced severe repercussions merely for having an unpopular opinion. Corporate culture is one that encourages having no opinions outside of the norms of the human resources department (themselves subject to change with fashion or new leadership). Dr. Jackall writes:

Organizational leaders can attempt to set standards of moral evaluation and practical moral reasoning to guide their charges’ actions. But since there is no necessary connection between the good of a particular individual, the good of an organization, and the common good, standards that leaders might assert are arbitrary to some extent, subject to negotiation and reinterpretation by competing organizational interests, and always suspect as public relations ploys.[12]

What concerns us here is not whether either Mozilla or Mr. Eich was right or wrong but rather how corporate culture stifles any thought which drifts out of the mainstream. Not only is there no necessary connection to the common good, there is virtually no incentive to think along such lines in the first place. Like the flimsy patron-client relationships described above, this conformity has negative ramifications in the outside world. Employees who are conditioned to thinking within very narrow parameters for the better part of the day will be far less likely to engage in radical politics when the work day is over. They will come to internalize the value of conformity to an unhealthy degree. Though this could certainly be considered a rational response to internal office politics, it stifles spiritual and political vitality in general and race consciousness in particular — what the New Right would obviously refer to as “the common good.”

It has probably already occurred to many readers that much of what has been described above reflects healthy human impulses. There is nothing inherently wrong with deference to authority, with conformity, and with bureaucracy. There is also nothing inherently wrong with corporations. Indeed, given a fit culture, the opposite can be true.  Political scientist A. James Gregor, relaying the ideas of the Italian Fascist theorist Sergio Panunzio, writes:

Obedience to law, and respect for authority that sustains it . . . finds its origin in the natural human trait of making positive response to suggestion from primary group members, imitating behavior of peers and superiors, and being responsive to affirmations of value common to the community. The very nature of in-group amity renders the individual susceptible to social influences that govern not only behaviors, but a sense of appropriate conduct, and helps generate the moral and ethical convictions that sustain all of that.[13]

In the current Judaized cultural climate, under a government that actively seeks to destroy any and all sense of collective white identity, that which inhibits active resistance to racial dispossession can only be seen as a tremendous negative.  The question before us is how to reclaim a position of authority so that these natural human traits can be reoriented towards racial self-preservation. The sociopolitical and psychological orientation of white Americans has been co-opted by allegiance to the false parallel state and corporate cultural matrix.

There is a three-pronged war waged by corporations against whites: first, a demographic war through affirmative action, diversity training, off-shoring, support for immigration, corporate donations to anti-white causes, and race-based (read anti-white) promotions — not to mention the problems of free-market fetishization and the harm caused by the neoliberal system in which corporations thrive; second, a war of symbols through the anti-white advertising epidemic and other industry-specific textual representations; and finally, through the creation and maintenance of an ossified, conformist workforce in which the individual employee’s sense of self and community is dependent upon wage-slavery, Asiatic levels of obsequiousness, and a shallow strategic loyalty to people who neither care about him as an individual nor as a part of any nation external to the corporate bureaucratic workforce. The corporate campus is the soil, the workforce is the blood, and the corporation itself is the state. We need to resist this both in theory and in practice by redefining what it means to be a national citizen and reclaiming the state as the expression of the collective will of the nation. Integral to this effort will be the disestablishment of the parallel state, a permanent end to corporate dual-citizenship, and a profound shift in our understanding of the relationship between the nation-state and the economy.

Notes:
1. Bureau of Labor Statistics, “American Time Use Survey,” http://www.bls.gov/tus/charts/ (accessed January 3, 2016).
2. For a fascinating analysis of exurbia, including the architecture of office parks, I highly recommend: Joel Garreau, Edge City: Life on the New Frontier (New York: Anchor Books, 1992).
3. Robert Jackall, Moral Mazes: The World of Corporate Managers, 20th anniversary ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010), p. 10.
4. Chronologically, this coincides with the financialization of Western culture. See my review of Alex Preda’s book which charts this development: Donald Thoresen, “Framing Finance,” Counter-Currents Publishing, December 9, 2015, http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/12/framing-finance/ (accessed January 9, 2016).
5. The rise of telecommuting can be seen as a positive development in that it lessens the need for geographic mobility but membership in the bureaucracy and compliance with its internal logic remains necessary and so it is unlikely to create a major cultural shift in and of itself.
6. Jackall, p. 20.
7. Ibid., p. 11.
8. Ibid., p. 21.
9. Ibid., p. 142.
10. Ibid., p. 110.
11. Sarah McBride, “Mozilla CEO Resigns, Opposition to Gay Marriage Drew Fire,” Reuters, April 3, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/us-mozilla-ceo-resignation-idUSBREA321Y320140403 (accessed January 9, 2016).
12. Jackall, p. 239.
13. A. James Gregor, Mussolini’s Intellectuals: Fascist Social and Political Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005), p. 71.

Review of “Saving Capitalism” by Robert Reich

via Occident Invicta

Antarian Jewish Marxist and his
book, Saving Capitalism
As longtime readers are aware, I have never held untrammeled capitalism – or its most passionate devotees, Libertarians – in particularly high esteem. Whether it’s cultural decay, soaring levels of stress, or even exploding white suicide rates, the sociopathic pursuit of profit can account for much of the US’s decline.

At the same time, I’m not someone who measures a society’s health solely by looking at its system or policies in place; ultimately, a country’s people and culture determine its character. That’s why, in spite of my populist sentiments, I don’t think that there is anything inherently defective about capitalism. While my fellow blogger Robert Lindsay rightly decries the grotesque nature of American capitalism, I sometimes feel like he too often reduces everything to capitalism itself, which ignores crucial cultural context. Reading Saving Capitalism, written by former Clinton labor secretary and Berkeley scholar Robert Reich, reaffirms this belief. Even though Reich’s social commentary is very wanting and neglects many crucial factors (more on this later), his book should make it clear that the US’s resemblance to a banana republic says more about the American way than capitalism itself.

Indeed, one of the most crucial points Reich makes is that the way we discuss capitalism in American society is fundamentally flawed. Too often, we’re presented with a false dichotomy between the so-called “free market” and government intervention; as Reich demonstrates, such a debate is nonsense – the “free market” being a fiction. The infuriating truth of it all is that while our current oligarchs tout the benefits of free enterprise and competition, they furtively tamper with the market in order to ensure that it siphons yet more wealth to them.

Examples abound of the myriad ways that laws and practices are structured in order to benefit the rich and powerful. For example, to add yet another item to the sordid list of American Exceptionalism, Americans pay more money for internet than most of their 1st world counterparts; in turn, they’re plagued with slower internet service than people in the civilized world – all because of the virtual monopolies that cable companies have. Any time a city builds a fiber-optic network, as Chattanooga, Tennessee, has done, giants like Comcast sue and go on the attack. Another vexing example is how Big Pharma extends patents – enabling them to keep charging exorbitant prices – simply by making minor (and ultimately insignificant) cosmetic alterations to drugs. And for my fellow millennials out there, I’m sure it will warm your hearts to know that while bankruptcy law enables corporations to cheat employees out of wages, declaring bankruptcy will not shield any of you from having to pay back your college debts; and should you remain burdened with debt up until your old age, these educational loan sharks can take your social security money. It also goes without saying that incompetent CEOs frequently get massive bonuses, and corporations can even deduct CEO earnings from their taxes. While they may not support Bernie Sanders, our elites are zealous proponents of big government. They just want it to promote socialism for the rich.

It may be hard to believe in today’s new Gilded Age, but blatant socialism for the rich wasn’t always the norm. Reich examines the sense of corporate stewardship that prevailed – or was at least publicly endorsed – from the 30s up until the 70s. An influential 1932 study called The Modern Corporation and Private Property exhorted corporate leaders to balance “a variety of claims by various groups in the community and [assign] each a portion of the income stream on the basis of public policy rather than private cupidity.” Reich also quotes an early 50s issue of Fortune, which promoted the “industrial statesman.” The duty of CEOs was to guide the economy and ensure general prosperity; the Al “Chainsaw” Dunlap model of corporate leadership was still decades away. Consequently, Reich believes that we can salvage capitalism and make it work for the many as opposed to the few, and this period of American history substantiates his argument.

However, I don’t share Reich’s overall optimism. As much as we may pine for the post-WWII economy, that era was an accident of history.  For most of this country’s existence, avaricious – though less crude – plutocrats such as Chainsaw Al have been the norm; just think of the Gilded Age and the massive inequality of the 20s.

My take is that the shock of the Great Depression, combined with the challenge of WWII, kicked the US into shape and fostered a greater sense of solidarity. There was likewise little international competition following the devastation of WWII, which left the US virtually unscathed. The influence of the Soviets also erected some barriers to global capitalism and all its shenanigans (and no, this isn’t an endorsement of Communism). However, following the Reagan Revolution, globalization, and the end of the Soviet threat, American business leaders had no real incentives to treat their fellow Americans right – and acted accordingly. Far from penalizing them, our culture in many ways lauds their predatory methods.

Therefore, while unions and other forms of what Reich calls “countervailing power” are good and all, I think that in order to save capitalism, American society itself is in dire need of saving. That’s why the greatest flaw of the book is Reich’s inability (or unwillingness) to delve into the American way of life.

For starters, he completely ignores the issue of immigration, which is a rather glaring omission. While correlation doesn’t equal causation, it takes some willful blindness not to notice that stagnating wages for most American workers coincides with post-1965 immigration. After all, there’s a reason why corporate giants favor open borders. Reich’s obliviousness also extends to the racial realm, where he naively hopes that quarreling social groups can come together to combat the influence of the wealthy. This greatly downplays the increasingly rancorous nature of American society, which hinders the kind of trust and cooperation necessary to build “countervailing power.”

Such obtuseness causes progressives like Reich to extol the economic virtues of the 50s while neglecting to mention that the US back then was around 90% white and less open to immigration. Leftists are similarly oblivious when failing to recognize (or acknowledge) that their favorite European socialist utopias are much smaller and more homogenous than the US.

Such countries also don’t subscribe to the bootstrap myth (or at least not to the same degree), which presumes that the rich and poor deserve their lot in life. A major reason wealthy Americans get away with so much shit that would not fly in other advanced countries is because Americans subconsciously worship the rich. They’re also ashamed, and feel like they could have made it to the top themselves if only they worked harder. Reich doesn’t go into this enough, and seems to labor under the delusion that simply tweaking a few market policies can magically transform the US into more functioning 1st world countries.

But obviously, the US is not Denmark; that’s why it will take more than electing new officials and passing laws to eliminate American kleptocracy. That means ending Ayn Rand worship and individualism gone off the rails; it means tempering the obsession with wealth and status; and most importantly, it means cultivating a greater sense of nationalism. When a businessman feels a sense of belonging to a nation and its people, he just might think twice about screwing over his kin. That’s why, without trying to sound like a tin foil hat type, I don’t think it’s entirely coincidental that the growing obsession with “diversity” and the SJW cult go hand-in-hand with our emerging banana republic.

In conclusion, the most important lesson to draw from Saving Capitalism is that nothing about our current economic system is set in stone. Human beings created this current malaise, and human beings can remedy it. But first and foremost, we must extirpate the US’s bizarre cultural pathologies that have rendered it the 3rd world of the 1st world.

The Revolution Will Take Work

via TradYouth

Too many Nationalists think like underpants gnomes. The underwear gnomes from South Park had a plan to make a vast fortune. They would sneak into people’s homes, steal their underwear, and then came the issue: The underpants gnomes thought that if they stole the underwear they would then make profit, but that middle part of their plan–how to make profit–was left with a giant question mark.

The nationalist movement in America in many ways has been acting like the underpants gnomes. As demographics shift away from a White majority, “retaking America” has become an impossible proposition. Demographically to move all non-Europeans out of America would be an undertaking that would be impossible, and within the ideology of nationalism we must support sovereign nations for all peoples.

Each ethnic community deserves the right to have a nation for their Faith, family and folk. America is too out of scale to be governed as a single nation and there is plenty of room and resources to divide among the various ethnic communities in the United States.

White advocates have by and large come to terms with the fact that we need to create a nation of our own, but many either don’t know or seem to want to put a real plan to realize our dream.

The plan for the creation of a Homeland for our people cannot be;

Step 1. Get people to become ethnically aware.
Step 2. ?
Step 3. Ethno-State!

The response many people give me is that we don’t need to build a mass movement. Instead we can just wait for the economically capitalist and culturally Marxist System to fall to pieces. Many people point to the writings of militia groups or post-apocalyptic novels on how when the economy or social strife hits a certain level, people will awaken overnight and we will march to victory. This model has never happened before in human history and it is not going to work for our struggle. While it would be nice if this magical “mass awakening” would happen with the downturn of the stock market or a flick of Obama’s pen on a new gun regulation, the reality has proven it’s just not so.

By that logic, Americans should have revolted dozens of times within the past few decades. The Southern people revolted when the Federal government simply threatened to overwhelm State sovereignty and taxes were by our current standards, very small. The American Founders revolted over not having a say in Parliament and not wanting to pay taxes to refund England for fighting a war against the French and Indians. The modern media, educational system, and White Guilt have silenced a part of the White mindset that must be awoken before any movement can go forward.

Wall Street was able to take unknown billions of dollars from taxpayers as pensions. Wages and jobs were shredded to pay for the new bonuses and private jets of the elites. We impeached Nixon for deleting sixteen minutes of tape and wiretapping an office two generations ago. Now our government admits that high ranking politicians can delete thousands of classified emails while spying on every email, phone call, and text that we make.

Our government lied to us about the war in Iraq, sending thousands to die and trillions of our dollars into a failed quagmire for the interests of Israel. The Feds have let an immigrant invasion into our nation, changing the demographics and culture of America in a short period of time all while sending close to fifteen million industrial and blue collar jobs overseas.

The average White American is poorer than his parents. He has less of a say in his government, community, and even his family. He’s under attack more now than ever in history. The vast majority of people want to do something, but they haven’t been organized to fight for their best interests. That is where a Political movement is necessary to get the people to be able to work in an organized fashion to achieve quantifiable political goals.

People use that supposed point of just “waiting for it all to fall apart” to justify inaction and avoid doing the hard work that has to be done. Fantasizing about strolling into power isn’t activism and it isn’t helping, only real sacrifice and work will get the job done.

We must work to first educate White Americans on who they are, their history, and what vision will provide the best future for them and their children. After this is done, we cannot sit and wait for something to happen; we must make it happen through our actions. Political revolution can occur after we have educated and mobilized the White population to believe in the dream of an independent and sovereign ethno-state. The ethno-state will not appear magically, we must wage political warfare to make it come into being, just like every other nationalist revolution and liberation movement has done.

Our people need a political movement that will fight for them and their interests; that movement is the Traditionalist Worker Party
Our people need a political movement that will fight for them and their interests; that movement is the Traditionalist Worker Party

The struggle is not always going to be sexy or exciting. It will take countless hours of leafleting, holding meetings, going to demonstrations, knocking on doors for candidates, more cups of coffee than could be counted, freezing our butts off in the winter and boiling in the summer while out on Party activities and the actions of thousands of people to make our dream a reality.

The Revolution will not be “Mad Max” or “The Turner Diaries” it will be a political and social movement based on our people demanding a Home for our people and by our people, just as dozens of ethnic communities have done in the past. White Americans must view this struggle as one for liberation; liberation from the powers of International Jewry, liberation from a tyrannical government and liberation from a failed multicultural experiment that is demographically and socially displacing our people from the continent.

We need to look to what the Kurds, the Palestinians, and numerous other ethnic communities do as they fight for their own nations. We as White Americans must work on building a nation of our own and to grow an independence movement. This will take a lot of work and political organizing, but it can and must be done. The Traditionalist Worker Party is a movement that will fight for economic, social and political justice and independence for White Americans.

If the NSDAP or the Blackshirts or the Legion or the Falange had stayed in their beer halls and fantasized about power and never actually built a real political movement to seize power their nationalist movements never would have taken off. We need to embrace the spirit of Revolutionaries, and that means taking to the streets and working, sacrificing and being willing to give up our freedom or our lives in the battle for Faith, family and folk. Victory will be ours, but only if we seize it.

Armed Oregon Occupation: It's about White Poverty in the Western States

via Transudationism

Ammon Bundy says that federal land management
practices are pushing more people into poverty,
highlighting a serious rural economic problem
If you thought the armed occupation of a federal bird refuge in Oregon was simply a battle over land rights, think again.

This week, Ammon Bundy, the leader of the group, complained that Westerners are helpless against a federal foe that is “literally putting [White people] into poverty.”

To be sure, since their take-over of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge last weekend, Mr. Bundy and his group have struggled to elicit sympathy and support. But by reframing the issue, Bundy may find a wider audience. And he's right: Poverty in the American West is rising even as it has fallen in the Deep South.


By raising the plight of poor, mostly White Americans languishing under the thumb of federal land managers provides a poignant insight into recent economic trends as well as a centuries-old fight over land use in the west, one which could, some say, provide these Western range riders common cause with other groups of marginalized Americans.

After all, America’s unresolved debate over federal management of nearly half the land in Western states  – some quarter billion acres, in all, including 87 percent of Nevada – has increasingly come to focus on one stark fact of federal stewardship: As leaders in Washington – including President Obama – have taken a harder line on protecting public lands from loggers, miners, ranchers and others who wish to use it for profit, poverty in the rural West has intensified even as poverty has lifted in the Deep South.

Bundy’s comments are “really the first time [since the Great Depression] where rural people are talking about their fear of poverty and their experience of poverty,” says Catherine McNicol Stock, a Connecticut College historian and author of “Rural Radicals: Righteous Rage in the American Grain.” “White people don’t want to talk about being poor or a small town in Kansas being a White ghetto – nobody’s going to use those terms. What’s remarkable is that these guys are actually saying ‘impoverishment’ and blaming it on government, as opposed to broader structures in society.”


What spurred the current standoff is the sentencing of two members of the Hammond ranching family to five years in prison, even after a state judge deemed such a sentence cruel and “unconscionable.” 

On Thursday, Bundy met with Harney County Sheriff David Ward, who asked Bundy to heed the will of locals and leave. Bundy declined. 

Yet the decision by the protesters in Oregon to attempt to redefine the terms of the land debate to one of civil rights – Mr. Bundy invoked Rosa Parks before saying that “we realize we have to act if we want to have anything left to pass down to our children” – is rooted, at least in part, in economic and demographic trends.

Fifty years ago, half of the poor in America lived in the Deep South, a figure that dropped to 41 percent in 2010. Over the same time frame, the West’s share of the nation’s low-income population climbed from 11 percent to 23 percent – remarkable, given that more counties in the West today have fewer than two people per square mile than in 1890.

Rebellion does seem in order,” writes Joseph Taylor III, for Reuters. “It’s just not Ammon Bundy’s version.” But, he adds, more “Bundy-like spectacles” are likely, given that “they have been occurring for two centuries, and nothing to date has resolved the underlying grievances, many of which are real, legitimate, and fundamental to any lasting resolution.”

As Ammon Bundy pointed out, Harney County, the site of the protest, has gone from Oregon’s wealthiest to its poorest since federal land management tightened in the 1970s. Its timber industry has been decimated under federal land use management.

“When 60, 70 or 80 percent of a county is federally controlled, and the federal policies prevent active management and use of those lands, the result is you have depressed economies, impoverished people, and a lack of hope,” says Rep. Greg Walden (R) of Oregon, who represents Harney County.

San Juan County, Utah, sees 40 percent of its children born into families in persistent poverty – meaning that their conditions haven’t changed for more than three decades. Ninety-two percent of the county is managed by the Bureau of Land Management.

“This is not about the Bundys, it’s not about the Hammond family, or about Burns, Ore. – they’re not creating the problem,” says Phil Lyman, a San Juan County, Utah, county commissioner who was convicted last year on charges related to a protest ATV ride through Recapture Canyon, closed in 2007 to protect the remains of an archaeological excavation. “The problem is what’s being created by these agencies that have no political accountability and no knowledge about the areas they’re affecting so dramatically. They have 100 percent control and zero responsibility. That’s a recipe for disaster. And that’s what’s happening.”

Conspiracy, Compliance, Control, and Defiance

via Alternative Right

Announcing the release of Andy Nowicki's new book, Conspiracy, Compliance, Control, and Defiance now available in paperback and Kindle.
From the Amazon.com page:
"In this passionately-worded treatise, Andy Nowicki considers the nature of power, both political and personal.

"Nowicki observes the ruthless, cold-blooded, patently reptilian nature of the contemporary ruling class. Assessing this demonic claque's infernal ability to keep their subjects 'zombified' through calculated campaigns of manipulation, bribery, and sheer psychological terror (with an extended commentary on their contrived responses to catastrophic events like 9/11 and Sandy Hook), Nowicki addresses the struggles faced by the proud man who attempts to render himself immune from the maddening mesmeric machinations of totalitarian tyrants.

"A penetrating, shocking, and uncompromising meditation on 'what is, and what is to be done' by Andy Nowicki, controversial scribe of the current 'Alt-Right' scene."
Passages from Conspiracy, Compliance, Control, and Defiance, published at Alternative Right:

"Slaves to Our Programming"

The Jews Did 9-11: Now Trump Knows it

via The Realist Report

Summary: Activist tells Donald Trump: Israelis, not Muslims, were only ones caught celebrating after 9-11 attacks.

An activist recently got close to billionaire GOP presidential candidate Donald J. Trump to confront him over controversial statements Trump made concerning Muslims celebrating the September 11 false-flag attacks. Martin Hill, who maintains the website LibertyFight.com, had the opportunity to correct Trump, informing the maverick politician that he was wrong. It was Israelis, not Muslims, who were caught dancing and high-fiving following the terrorist event.

Trump, the maverick office-seeker dominating headlines and public opinion polls, is known to cause controversy. His frank, unabashed criticisms of the outrageous corruption plaguing Washington, D.C., the tyrannical nature of political correctness, the destructive effects of so-called free trade and globalization, and the federal government’s failure to deal seriously with the southern border and illegal immigration have dominated political headlines since he announced his presidential candidacy earlier this past summer.

Trump’s recent proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States, which came in the aftermath of the alleged Islamic-inspired terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California—an event about which this newspaper’s recent coverage has raised serious questions—has arguably caused the most controversy.

Every major Jewish organization in America has hysterically denounced Trump, as have all of the Democratic presidential candidates and major party leaders. Additionally, many mainstream conservative political commentators and activists, as well as many of the GOP presidential candidates competing with Trump, have condemned Trump’s comments and public policy proposals as “anti-American,” “nativist,” and “racist.”

Shortly after the San Bernardino incident, Trump claimed that “thousands” of Muslims in the New York City area were actually cheering and celebrating the 9-11 terrorist attacks. His comments have caused major controversy. However, what was missed in all of the uproar was the fact that Israelis connected to the Mossad intelligence agency and military establishment, who were posing as Muslim extremists, were arrested by various local and federal law enforcement agencies. The best-known case, which was covered exclusively by AMERICAN FREE PRESS, involved the East Rutherford, New Jersey Police Department, whose officers arrested the iconic “dancing Israelis” on the morning of 9-11.

CONFRONTATION

Hill had been following the Trump campaign for weeks, eagerly awaiting an opportunity to confront the leading GOP candidate on his controversial statements regarding alleged reports of Muslims in America celebrating the 9-11 attacks.

Hill’s dedication and patience paid off in a major way at a recent Trump rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, where the courageous activist openly confronted Trump about the “dancing Israelis” and Israel’s central role in planning, executing, and most certainly benefiting from the events of 9-11.

“Trump’s comments about alleged ‘cheering Muslims’ made me angry because I saw it as nothing more than an amplifying of the Zionist propaganda that Americans have been inundated with for the past 15 years,” Hill told AFP. “There is one purpose of this: to perpetuate the fear and support of the neocon imperial agenda of endless wars in the Middle East, the tyrannical police state in America, and blind support for the Israeli lobby and their diabolical geopolitical agenda.”

Hill originally traveled to a Trump rally in South Carolina with the hopes of confronting the GOP frontrunner.

“In South Carolina, I had a chance to shake Trump’s hand—he signed my bumper sticker—and I asked him about the undue influence of the Israeli lobby in America, and if he would put a stop to it for us,” Hill explained. Trump simply refused to answer Hill’s entirely legitimate and direct question, which only fueled his determination to confront the controversial and politically incorrect presidential contender.

“When Trump went to Michigan, I spent a great deal of time, effort, and expense to be there to once again confront him,” Hill told AFP. “I was almost directly in front of the podium in which Trump was speaking, and I shouted: ‘You listen to me, Trump!’ To my shock, he actually quit talking and looked at me, in this stadium with a capacity crowd of 9,000 people, waiting to hear what I would say.”

Hill continued: “I shouted, ‘Five Jews were arrested on 9-11 in New Jersey, not Muslims!’ I added that it was, ‘Five Jews, you got it?’ and concluded with, ‘Israel did 9-11,’ a fact AFP has been exposing for years now.”

Incredibly, Trump actually listened to Hill, and described him as a “Trump guy” with “a lot of energy.” Hill was shortly thereafter escorted out of the rally.

Describing his motivation for confronting Trump, Hill told AFP: “The ‘Global War on Terror’ is a complete hoax, a fraud, and the Muslim boogeyman is a contrived enemy created by the U.S. government to inflict fear into the populace. While actual Islamic terrorism does exist, it is oftentimes funded, encouraged, and provoked by the U.S. government.

“The people need to know the truth about 9-11, a monumental false-flag event, which involved the Central Intelligence Agency and Israel, with the full consent of our government,” Hill stated. “As a Catholic, I believe that the American people should learn about the ‘Just War Doctrine’ of St. Augustine, and promote peace among nations. We have an obligation to speak the truth.”

How "Feminists" Pimp-out White Women

via Renegade Tribune

Editor's Note: The goal of "feminism" is to divide White women from White men in an effort to get them to think, act, and (most importantly) vote in a way that advances the interests of Jewish men.

We have now reached the stage where we cannot even adequately protect our own women from mass rapes: in Britain, Rotherham and dozens of other places; in Germany, Cologne. No doubt in other white countries, there are similar hidden scandals waiting to be uncovered. Frankly, when you get to that point, you know that you no longer live in a society worth preserving.

refugee-germany-welcome-740x490What is additionally disturbing about the Cologne rape scandal, as if the bare facts are not disturbing enough, is that, perhaps for the first time, women are at the forefront of defending the multi-cultural orthodoxy that has resulted in this mess. It is a prominent woman, Angela Merkel, who brought these rapists into Germany, and she did so enthusiastically. It is a woman, Henriette Reker, the Mayor of Cologne, who, intentionally or not, has played a part in normalising mass rapes by telling women they should keep their distance from men. Feminists are also acting to divert attention from the race and immigration issues by suggesting that white men are equally culpable in raping and assaulting women.

Merkel, Reker and the other feminists defending the rapists are nothing but pimps. They are selling the flowers of Germany to Third World sub-races, all for capitalism and the enemies of the White Race. For those who dabble in reason, the irresistible conclusion is that feminism itself is part of the problem.

No doubt the feminists will argue that the problems are patriarchy, and such things as misogyny, not individual female politicians or feminism. Very well then, let us for the sake of argument agree with the feminists that the problems are patriarchy and the misogynist attitudes of men. It’s wrong, but it’s not a completely wild or unreasonable position to take. After all, white men do commit rapes too, so let’s run with it. The question we must then ask is why most of these same feminists seem to support the influx of more men from what they would regard as primeval patriarchal and ‘misogynistic’ cultures? Shouldn’t feminists be opposed to mass immigration, even opposed to non-white immigration altogether?

Well? Any answer? It’s doubtful we would receive a logical or coherent answer to this from feminists, and to be fair, it’s quite the conundrum for them. The puzzle is easily resolved when we reject the feminist thesis by pointing out how patriarchies are designed to protect women and, in their purer, more traditional form, are far from misogynist in that they actually put women in a highly-privileged position in society.

Editor's note: feminism is a jewish construct
Editor’s addition: feminism
is a Jewish construct.
What women must do is renounce feminism, not patriarchy. It is feminism, and specifically, feminists, who are the misogynists and who pose the greatest risk to women, as well as wider society. Feminists pimp women into the workplace. Feminists pimp women into the armed forces. Now the pimping is reaching its logical conclusion. White women are being pimped for sex to every Third World interloper who wants it – and this is supported by feminists, even enabled by them. Feminists and other SJW types like to talk of safe spaces, but until mass immigration, women had a safe space. It was called Europe. White women never had to live in a ‘rape culture’ until the arrival of non-white men from less refined cultures.
Why have feminists supported things that might harm women? Because feminists are women, feminism is female nature, and all women are feminists. However, different women understand and experience feminism in different ways. The pimping feminists are a small minority of women. For most ordinary women, diffused feminist ideological tenets interpolate their daily lives without them being conscious of this. The more conscious feminists, i.e. women, like Merkel, and similar others lower down the hierarchy, pimp out white women because they can, and because they think nobody will notice the social effects, and also because, like most women, they have a tendency to use shaming tactics against men who would oppose them. Ordinary women go along with much of this because they perceive that feminist social goals suits their personal interests, for which we can thank the highly effective propaganda of the mainstream media and the film and advertising industries, and so on. Most women will not be aware of the link between feminism, leftism and problems such as rape, sexual assault, disrespect from men, lower birth rates and the destruction of families.

Feminism also addresses the deep, subconscious psychosexual needs of women: to be protected and dominated, and to reproduce with genetically-fit men. To fulfill these impulses, feminism manifests a dialectical nature: it is a reaffirmation of the patriarchy, by rebelling against it in some ways, and by working for patriarchal goals in other respects. In this regard, feminists ally with the Third World immigrants and their defenders because they wish to strengthen the genetic pool of available men in a social environment where, due to feminist and leftist propaganda, men have been morally and spiritually weakened and so are not perceived to be as ‘strong’.  In short, men have failed the test set for them by women. Feminism threw down the gauntlet to men, not in any conscious way, but as a manifestation of unconscious female nature. It is just another example of the eternal call from women that men should be men, that men should protect women, and that men should pursue their primal territorial destiny.

So the safe space will have to be recaptured. It is a challenge that can only be met through violence. All other efforts – the groups, the political parties, the factions, the articles, the books, the marches, the rallies, the speeches, the nice internet chats – are all an evasive deferral and diversion from what must happen.
Only one question remains: When?

Guilty Shadows

via Radix

A New Year was coming.

It was another chance to set everything right. To celebrate the year’s milestones and mourn its losses. She would go out tonight. She would have a good time. Like she always did.

There was something about the great cathedral in Cologne. She was an atheist of course, but its presence always comforted her. Maybe, it was because she grew up here and called this city home. She and her boyfriend, Georg, always came to the cathedral on the New Year. It was as close to ritual as they got.

She had a lot to be proud of this year. There was that promotion at work, the new dog she and Georg had adopted. They named the little mutt Angela, after the Chancellor. Not that they were political.

But she couldn’t help but swell with pride when the Chancellor opened up Germany to all those poor souls from Syria. Yes, how proud she was. In fact, she and Georg went down to a train station to welcome the refugees to Germany. To their home. In fact, they had even talked of housing a migrant family in their house. It was big enough. In fact, far too large for just one couple and their two dogs.

“The poor wretches,” she remembered. Most of them were young men, which surprised her. How lonely they must be, in a foreign land. There was one young man that stood out to her that day. He was about thirty, and he had the look of hunger in his eyes. She saw that look before, when she volunteered in South America years ago. His eyes were almost as black as his hair, the tattered clothes he wore spoke of a long journey. But there was his face, hunger was on it, but so was something else. Something she had never seen before. Unlike South America though, the hunger she saw wasn’t just desperate it was "ravenous." Yes, ravenous, as if the face of a starving wolf. Briefly, she was afraid. She was ashamed for it. It was then that she committed to housing one or more of these lost souls, she needed to atone.

This year, they would do it. She remembered when she told her parents. How shocked they were! But they did not want to say anything, after all the pain their own parents brought to the world, they were always sensitive to being seen as “racists” or being against “progress.” In fact, she heard her mother whispering secretly to her father when she thought she was out of earshot, “I know I should be more supportive, but it just seems dangerous and strange.” “Aha,” she thought, it was just like her professors told her, all of the old generation were closet Nazis!

“Not me,” she thought. She was compassionate, broad minded. A good university education and summers spent in South America made her what she liked to think of as a citizen of the world. “After all, we have a duty, as Germans to atone,” she pondered. She couldn’t shake a maternal feeling either, perhaps it was because she and Georg had decided not to have children, that she felt so much for so many. “It would be selfish just to keep that love to just my child,” and her thoughts started to trail. The cathedral loomed large ahead.

As these thoughts and memories bubbled up she and Georg walked closer towards the cathedral. All of these people, and all of these new faces. This will be the year she thought, the year the world starts to love Germany. She’ll be able to travel without foreigners giving her Roman salutes, or boorish Americans expecting her to know every detail of the Third Reich. Yes, this would be the year she could be proud to be German.

They walked past a group of refugees. She was so proud, she was practically beaming. It was a new year, a new Germany! She called out to them and they waved back, and even smiled. There was something sinister about those smiles, at least that’s what Georg thought.

The countdown had begun. They had a prime location very close to the cathedral. Zehn, neuf, acht, sieben, sechts, fünf, und so weiter. It had come and gone in an anti-climax, like every year before. She and Georg embraced, and kissed. They were warm and she was happy and in love. If only everyone could know this happiness she thought. Especially those poor refugees, if anyone deserved it they did. That’s when she knew what she had to do, she had been so selfish.

She would go to those refugees she saw earlier. She would offer their home, she would bring them happiness, the time was now. It was a new year, and she had to do her part to build the new Germany. It would be a Germany of love. A Germany for everyone. She broke away from Georg.

She started to leave. He asked her where she was going? “You’ll see!” she called back. She had to do this alone, otherwise it would never get done. Though supportive in principle, Georg was far too apprehensive about their plans. It was always next month, next month.

Sometimes she thought he wasn’t really committed to their plans. That he let his own irrational fears get the best of him. But he always came to see she was right.
He wouldn’t object if she just took action. Yes, that’s how it always was with men these days. She ran on. Back to where she saw the men earlier. They were still there.
The lights from the cathedral cast a shadow. They flickered on the men in the alleyway. They were smiling, and so was she.

Snow began to fall. Georg did not know where she went. He would never see her again. In fact, no German would…

Addendum

This is posted in memory of the horrific events of Cologne, and other German cities.
The invasion has begun, it’s time to wake up!

Down the Ratholes of the Future

via The Archdruid Report

The new year now upon us has brought out the usual quota of predictions about what 2016 has in store, and I propose as usual to make my own contribution to that theme.  I’ve noted more than once in the past that people who make predictions about the future really ought to glance back at those predictions from time to time and check how well they’re doing. With that in mind, before we go on to 2016, I’d like to take a moment to look back over the predictions I made last year.  My post on the subject covered a lot of territory in the course of offering those predictions, and I’ve trimmed down the discussion a bit here for the sake of readability; those who want to read the whole thing as originally published will find it here. In summarized form, though, this is what I predicted:
“The first and most obvious [thing to expect] is the headlong collapse of the fracking bubble [...] Wall Street has been using the fracking industry in all the same ways it used the real estate industry in the runup to the 2008 crash, churning out what we still laughably call “securities” on the back of a rapidly inflating speculative bubble. As the slumping price of oil kicks the props out from under the fracking boom, the vast majority of that paper—the junk bonds issued by fracking-industry firms, the securitized loans those same firms used to make up for the fact that they lost money every single quarter, the chopped and packaged shale leases, the volumetric production agreements, and all the rest of it—will revert to its actual value, which in most cases approximates pretty closely to zero.
“Thus one of the entertainments 2015 has in store for us is a thumping economic crisis here in the US, and in every other country that depends on our economy for its bread and butter. The scale of the crash depends on how many people bet how much of their financial future on the fantasy of an endless frack-propelled boom, but my guess is it’ll be somewhere around the scale of the 2008 real estate bust.
“Something else that’s baked into the baby new year’s birthday cake at this point is a rising spiral of political unrest here in the United States. [...] Will an American insurgency funded by one or more hostile foreign powers get under way in 2015? I don’t think so, though I’m prepared to be wrong. More likely, I think, is another year of rising tensions, political gridlock, scattered gunfire, and rhetoric heated to the point of incandescence, while the various players in the game get into position for actual conflict:  the sort of thing the United States last saw in the second half of the 1850s, as sectional tensions built toward the bloody opening rounds of the Civil War.  [...]
“Meanwhile, back behind these foreground events, the broader trends this blog has been tracking since its outset are moving relentlessly on their own trajectories. The world’s finite supplies of petroleum, along with most other resources on which industrial civilization depends for survival, are depleting further with each day that passes; the ecological consequences of treating the atmosphere as an aerial sewer for the output of our tailpipes and smokestacks, along with all the other frankly brainless ways our civilization maltreats the biosphere that sustains us all, builds apace; caught between these two jaws of a tightening vise, industrial civilization has entered the rising spiral of crisis about which so many environmental scientists tried to warn the world back in the 1970s, and only a very small minority of people out on the fringes of our collective discourse has shown the least willingness to recognize the mess we’re in and start changing their own lives in response: the foundation, it bears repeating, of any constructive response to the crisis of our era.”
What I missed, and should have anticipated, is the extent to which the failure of the fracking fantasy has been hushed up by the mainstream US media. I should have anticipated that, too, because the same thing happened with the last energy boom that was going to save us all, the corn ethanol bubble that inflated so dramatically a decade ago and crumpled not long thereafter. Plenty of firms in the fracking industry have gone bankrupt, the junk bonds that propped up the industry are selling for pennies on the dollar to anyone willing to gamble on them, and all those grand claims that fracking was going to bring a new era of US energy independence have been quietly roundfiled next to the identical claims made for ethanol not that many years before; still, this hasn’t yielded the sudden shock I expected.
The ripple effect on the US economy has been slower than I anticipated, too.  Thus, instead of the thumping economic crisis I predicted, we’ve seen a slow grinding contraction, papered over by the usual frantic maneuvers on the part of the Fed. In effect, instead of popping, the fracking bubble sprang a slow leak, which has played out in a muffled drumbeat of worsening economic news rather than a sudden plunge. So I missed on that one. The rest of the year’s predictions? Once again, I called it.
Now of course, as my critics like to point out, it’s easy to look at everything that’s getting worse each year, and predict that all those things are just going to keep getting worse in the year to come. What those same critics tend to forget is that this strategy may be easy but, unlike the alternatives, it works. Every January, with a predictability that puts clockwork to shame, people trot out the same shopworn predictions of game-changing breakthroughs and game-over catastrophes; one blogger announces that this will be the year that renewable energy reaches critical mass, while another insists with equal enthusiasm that this will be the year when the wheels come off the global economy once and for all; another year passes, the breakthroughs and the catastrophes pull a no-show yet again, and here we are, 365 days further down the long ragged trajectory that leads to the end of the industrial age.
Thus my core prediction for 2016 is that all the things that got worse in 2015 will keep on getting worse over the year to come. The ongoing depletion of fossil fuels and other nonrenewable resources will keep squeezing the global economy, as the real (i.e., nonfinancial) costs of resource extraction eat up more and more of the world’s total economic output, and this will drive drastic swings in the price of energy and commodities—currently those are still headed down, but they’ll soar again in a few years as demand destruction completes its work. The empty words in Paris a few weeks ago will do nothing to slow the rate at which greenhouse gases are dumped into the atmosphere, raising the economic and human cost of climate-related disasters above 2015’s ghastly totals—and once again, the hard fact that leaving carbon in the ground means giving up the lifestyles that depend on digging it up and burning it is not something that more than a few people will be willing to face.
Meanwhile, the US economy will continue to sputter and stumble as politicians and financiers try to make up for ongoing declines in real (i.e., nonfinancial) wealth by manufacturing paper wealth at an even more preposterous pace than before, and frantic jerryrigging will keep the stock market from reflecting the actual, increasingly dismal state of the economy.  We’re already in a steep economic downturn, and it’s going to get worse over the year to come, but you won’t find out about that from the mainstream media, which will be full of the usual fact-free cheerleading; you’ll have to watch the rates at which the people you know are being laid off and businesses are shutting their doors instead. 
All that’s a slam-dunk at this point. Still, for those readers who want to see me taking on a little more predictive risk, I have something to offer. There’s a wild card in play in the US economy just now, and it’s the tech sector—no, let’s call things by less evasive names, shall we?  The current tech bubble. My financially savvy readers will know that a standard way to compare a company’s notional value to its real prospects is the ratio of the total price of all its stock to its annual earnings—the price/earnings or P/E ratio for short. Healthy companies in a normal economy usually have P/E ratios between 10 and 20; that is, their total stock value is between ten and twenty times their annual earnings.  Care to guess what the P/E ratio is for Amazon as of last Friday’s close? A jawdropping 985.
At that, Amazon is in better shape than some other big-name tech firms these days, as it actually has earnings. Twitter, for example, has never gotten around to making a profit at all, and so its P/E ratio is its current absurd stock value divided by zero. Valuations this detached from reality haven’t been seen since immediately before the “Tech Wreck” of 2000, and the reason is exactly the same: vast amounts of easy money have flooded into the tech sector, and that torrent of cash has propped up an assortment of schemes and scams that make no economic sense at all. Sooner or later, as a function of the same hard math that brings every bubble to an end, Tech Wreck II is going to hit, vast amounts of money are going to evaporate, and a lot of currently famous tech companies are going to go the way of Pets.com.
Exactly when that will happen is a good question, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that the next tech bust will be under way by the end of 2016. That’s specific prediction #1.
Another aspect of economic reality that’s going to hit hard in the year ahead is the ongoing deflation of the fracking bubble. Aside from the straightforward financial impact of that deflation, the failure of fracking to live up to the cornucopian fantasies piled onto it means that a lot of people who relied on it as a way of ignoring the harsh realities of planetary limits are going to have to find something else, so they can have new excuses for living the lifestyles that are wrecking the planet. There’s no shortage of candidates just now; no doubt billions of dollars, Euros, et al. will continue to be poured down the bottomless rathole of fusion research, and the government feed trough will doubtless have plenty of other corporate swine lined up and grunting for their share, but my best guess at this point is that photovoltaic (PV) solar energy is going to be the next big energy bubble.
Solar PV is a good deal less environmentally benign than its promoters like to claim—like so many so-called “green” technologies, the environmental damage it causes happens mostly in the trajectory from mining the raw materials to manufacture and deployment, not in day-to-day operation—and the economics of grid-tied solar power are so dubious that in practice, grid-tied PV is a subsidy dumpster rather than a serious energy source. Nonetheless, I expect to see such points brushed aside, airily or angrily as the case may be, as the solar lobby and its wholly-owned subsidiaries in the green movement make an all-out push to sell solar PV as the next big thing. The same rhetoric deployed to sell ethanol and fracking as game-changing innovations, which of course they weren’t, will be trotted out again for PV, as the empty promises made at the recent COP-21 meeting in Paris find their inevitable destiny as sales pitches for yet another alleged energy miracle that won’t fulfill the overinflated promises made on its behalf.
There’s still some uncertainty involved, but I’m going to predict that the mass marketing of what will inevitably be called “the PV revolution” will get under way in 2016. That’s specific prediction #2.
Meanwhile the political context of American life is heating steadily toward an explosion. As I write this, a heavily armed band of militiamen is holed up in a building on a Federal wildlife refuge in the deserts of southeastern Oregon, trying to provoke a standoff. Clownish as such stunts unquestionably are, it bears remembering that the activities of such violent abolitionists as John Brown looked just as pointless in their time; their importance was purely as a gauge of the pressures building toward civil war—and that’s exactly the same reading I give to the event just described.
That said, I don’t expect an armed insurgency of any scale to break out in the United States this year. The era of rural and urban guerrilla warfare, roadside bombs, internment camps, horrific human rights violations by all sides, and millions of refugees fleeing in all directions, that will bring down the United States of America is still a little while off yet, for one crucial reason: a large enough fraction of the people most likely to launch the insurgencies of the near future have decided to give the political process one last try, and the thing that has induced them to do this is the candidacy of Donald Trump.
The significance of Trump’s astonishing progress to front-runner status is large and complex enough that it’s going to get a post of its own here in the near future. For the moment, the point that matters is that a vast number of nominal Republicans are so sick of the business as usual being marketed by their party’s officially approved candidates that they’re willing to vote for absolutely anyone who is willing to break with the bipartisan consensus of what we might as well call the Dubyobama era: a consensus that has brought misery to the vast majority of Americans, but continues to benefit a privileged minority—not just the much-belabored 1%, but the top 20% or so of Americans by income.
Hillary Clinton is the candidate of that 20%, the choice of those who want things to keep going the way they’ve gone for the last two decades or so. More precisely, she’s the one candidate of the business-as-usual brigade left standing, since the half of the 20% that votes Democrat has rallied around her and done their best to shut down the competition, while the half that votes Republican failed to rally around Jeb Bush or one of his bland and interchangeable rivals, and thus got sidelined when the 80% made their own choice. It’s still possible that Bernie Sanders could pull off an upset, if he trounces Clinton in a couple of early primaries and the Democrat end of the 80% makes its voice heard, but that’s a long shot. Far more likely at this point is an election pitting Hillary Clinton against Donald Trump—and though Sanders could probably beat Trump, Clinton almost certainly can’t.
Granted, there are plenty of twists and turns ahead as America stumbles through its long, unwieldy, and gaudily corrupt election process. It’s possible that the GOP will find some way to keep Trump from gettng the nomination, in which case whoever gets the Republican nod will lose by a landslide as the GOP end of the 80% stays home. It’s possible that given enough election fraud—anyone who thinks this is purely a GOP habit should read Seymour Hersh’s The Dark Side of Camelot, which details how Joe Kennedy bought the 1960 election for his son—Clinton might still squeak through and get into the White House. It’s even possible that Sanders will claw his way over the barriers raised against him by the Democrat establishment and win the race.
At this point, though, little though I like to say this, the most likely outcome of the 2016 election is the inauguration of Donald Trump as President in January 2017. That’s specific prediction #3.
Then there’s the wider context, the international political situation that’s dominated by a fact next to nobody in this country is willing to discuss: the rapid acceleration of America’s imperial decline and fall over the last year. That’s something I’ve been expecting—I discussed it at length in my book Decline and Fall and also in my near-future political-military thriller novel Twilight’s Last Gleaming—but the details came as a surprise, not only to me, but apparently to everyone outside a few tightly guarded office buildings in Moscow. The Russian intervention in Syria has turned out to be one of the few real game-changing events in recent years, shifting the balance of power decisively against the US in a pivotal part of the world and revealing weaknesses that the illusion of US omnipotence has heretofore concealed. As a result, probably though not certainly before 2016 is over, the Daesh jihadi militia—the so-called “Islamic State”—is going to get hammered into irrelevance.
That latter may turn out to be a significant turning point in more ways than one, because the Daesh phenomenon is considerably more complex than the one-dimensional caricature being presented by the US media. The evidence at this point makes it pretty clear that Daesh is being funded and supported by a number of Middle Eastern nations, with Turkey and Saudi Arabia probably the biggest contributors; those iconic white pickup trucks aren’t popping into being in the middle of the Syrian desert by the sheer grace of Allah, after all. It’s also at least suggestive that the US, in a year of supposed air war against Daesh, not only failed to slow it down, but somehow never managed to notice, much less target, the miles-long convoys of tanker trucks hauling oil north to Turkey to cover the costs of jihad.
Something very murky has been going on in the northern Tigris-Euphrates river valley, and it deserves a post of its own here, since it will very likely will play a major role in the decline of American empire and the rise of a new global hegemony under different management. Regular readers may find it helpful to review this blog’s previous discussion of geopolitics, or even find a stray volume of Halford Mackinder and read it, keeping in mind that regions and continents have Pivot Areas of their own. Still, there’s a specific consequence that’s likely to follow from all this.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is a fine example of a phemomenon all too familiar to students of history: a crumbling, clueless despotism which never got the memo warning that it couldn’t get away any longer with acting like a major power. The steady decline in the price of oil has left the kingdom in ghastly financial condition, forced to borrow money on international credit markets to pay its bills, while slashing the lavish subsidies that keep its citizens compliant. A prudent ruling class in that position would avoid foreign adventures and cultivate the kind of good relationships with neighboring powers that would give it room to maneuver in a crisis. As so often happens in such cases, though, the rulers of Saudi Arabia are anything but prudent, and they’ve plunged openly into a shooting war just over its southern borders in Yemen, and covertly but massively into the ongoing mess in Syria and Iraq.
The war in Yemen is not going well—Yemeni forces have crossed the Saudi border repeatedly in raids on southern military bases—and the war in Syria and Iraq is turning out even worse. At this point, the kingdom can’t effectively withdraw from either struggle, nor can it win either one; its internal affairs are becoming more and more troubled, and the treasury is running low. It’s a familiar recipe, and one that has an even more familiar outcome: the abrupt collapse of the monarchy, followed by prolonged chaos until one or more new governments consolidate their power. (Those of my readers who know about the collapse of the Russian, Austro-Hungarian, and Ottoman Empires at the end of the First World War have a heads-up on tomorrow’s news.) When that happens—and at this point, it’s a matter of when rather than if—the impact on the world’s petroleum markets, investment markets, and politics will be jarring and profound, and almost impossible to predict in detail in advance.
The timing of political collapse is not much easier to predict, but here again, I’m going to plop for a date and say that the Saudi regime will be gone by the end of 2016. That’s specific prediction #4.
I admit quite cheerfully that all four of these predictions may turn out to be dead wrong. That the current tech bubble will pop messily, and that the House of Saud will implode just as messily, are to my mind done deals—in both cases, there’s a reliable historical pattern well under way, which will proceed to its predictable conclusion—but the timing is impossible to know in advance. That something or other will be loudly ballyhooed as the next reason privileged Americans don’t have to change their lifestyles, and that the collision between the policies of the Dubyobama era and the resentment and rage of those who’ve paid the cost of those policies will set US politics ablaze, are just as certain, but it’s impossible to be sure in advance that solar PV and Donald Trump will be the beneficiaries.
The simple reality remains that here in America, we’ve poured nearly all our remaining options for constructive change down the ratholes of the future, and the one option that could still accomplish something—the option of changing our lifestyles now, in order to decrease the burden we place on the planet and what’s left of the industrial economy—is considered unthinkable right across the political spectrum. That being the case, those of us who are doing the unthinkable, while we insulate our homes, sell our cars and other energy-wasting items, learn useful skills, and pursue the other pragmatic steps that matter just now, might want to lay in a good supply of popcorn, too; it’s going to be quite a show.